Feature Article

A Philistine in the Shingle Museum

The bumper stickers read “Gut Fish, Not Houses.” And as the Nantucket homeowner who helped inspire them has learned, in some historic neighborhoods, your remodeling team had better include a good lawyer.

By Sasha Issenberg

Page 1 of 6


The Nantucket Historic District Commission meets for its weekly deliberations in the cafeteria of the island’s Cyrus Peirce Middle School, with catering provided by the on-site vending machine. Dirk Roggeveen, the HDC’s chair, volunteers that the multihour affairs can be “painful to watch.” Created in 1955 to “promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Nantucket through the preservation and protection of historic buildings,” the commission’s jurisdiction was later expanded by the state to cover the entire island; as a result, its five elected members and three alternates now preside over just about every piece of exterior construction and renovation that takes place here. And given that the old whaling outpost today produces little beyond novelty T-shirts and overpriced cocktails, having final say in things like dormers, skirts, gables, eaves, and roof walks amounts to veto power over a huge slice of its economic activity. As they exercise this authority, the commission members engage in deliberations that can be suggestive of amateur architecture critics squabbling in the back seat during a Sunday drive. At one recent meeting, secretary Linda Williams pushed aside a set of plans for a proposed façade change with a sniff. “It’s a weird house,” she said. “I don’t hate it,” said Roggeveen, by way of defusing the situation.

Ever since he bought the house at 105 Main Street in late 2004 for $2.1 million, Edward DeSeta has become a recurring character in the commission’s restored-parlor farce. At times, he seemed to be coming to the cafeteria every Tuesday, always seeking the commission’s approval for a change he wanted to make to his property: to convert a garage into a living space, to rebuild a wooden fence, to replace a window sash. But no session was as contentious as the one that took place on June 27, 2006, when the agenda described the discussion to take place about 105 Main as an “administrative matter”—a term evidently used to describe an instance when the commission is put in the awkward, and disempowering, position of scolding a homeowner for work already done.

At the time, the 300-year-old house at 105 Main sat in constructive disrepair, its foundation exposed and many of its walls yanked out entirely. DeSeta, his wife, Wanda, lawyer William Hunter, and architect Rex Ingram took their places around the tables in the school cafeteria, accused of covertly collaborating on a “gut rehab,” as one of the commissioners dismissively called the million-dollar renovation under way. Throughout the hearing, Roggeveen had to repeatedly counsel his colleagues against “emotionalism.” It proved a tall order: To them, DeSeta had already begun to destroy, in concentric circles of importance, one of the island’s most prized vintage houses; a community’s sense of historical identity; and a powerful board’s ability to define architectural appropriateness for the island.

As he made his client’s case, Hunter appeared to be arguing that last point directly to Roggeveen, conceding that while, yes, the DeSetas were taking apart the walls of their house—which he said were rotten—there was nothing the commission could do about it. After all, the state law that created Nantucket’s historic district seemed to limit the commission’s purview to only the exteriors of buildings: It “shall not consider…interior arrangement or building features not subject to public view.” Essentially, Hunter was raising a question of architectural definitions worthy of the Sphinx: Were walls part of the house’s interior, or exterior?

The commission pointed to a subsequent, broader clause that says it’s a violation “for any person to raze any building or structure without having first obtained from the commission a permit for such razing.” “I don’t think you can stand there and tell us with a straight face that you can piece by piece replace an entire house so that every piece of wood in the house is new—on one of the oldest residences in Nantucket—and then tell us that it didn’t require a demolition permit,” said Roggeveen. “You can piecemeal demolish and replace one wall at a time. And pretty soon there’s nothing.”


 

Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next


Change text size
Print

Email

Write a comment
 
 

User comments

A Philistine in the Shingle Museum
Posted by Elizabeth | Oct. 15, 2007 at 7:17 AM
COMMENT:
In making their home on the island, the DeSetas spent a lot of money to restore an old Nantucket house which was ready to fall into ruin. The good people of Nantucket ought to appreciate the fact that the exterior of the house is attractive and historically appropriate (with the minute exception of the lighted doorbel), though it has not been so for quite a few years. I was alarmed to read the quote by Mr. Roggeveen: "We don't know what is going on inside the house". I am sympathetic to Nantucket residents, who strive to maintain the island's quaint beauty, but not with their wish to control what goes on inside anyone's home. It is simply none of their business. No one should have to put up with rotten boards or crumbling masonry because of some neighbor's fond memories of an earlier time in the house. I wonder if, when my circa 1970 ranch-style house is 300 years old (assuming it survives), the preservationists will insist upon re-installing the wall-to-wall gold shag carpet...[shu
Common ground
Posted by Rex | Nov. 12, 2007 at 7:40 PM
COMMENT:
I feel particularly privileged to have been involved in this project. The overriding lesson here for me was one of compromise. There were always two distinctly opposing voices which dominated the social dialogue, voices which, in order for the project to proceed, would need to find common ground. One voice was saying, ‘we have a constitutional right to protect and preserve our privately owned property,’ while the other was saying, ‘by altering this building you are destroying the fabric of Nantucket.’ One thing was clear and certain; the house was in desperate need of service which I attested to during our review meetings. There was great effort, and great expense, taken to preserve much of the original frame and materials. Where new materials were provided, original details were copied (again at great expense). This effort was balanced with providing a safe and lasting structure and rectifying inherent life safety issues. Rex Ingram Architect
Common ground
Posted by rex | Nov. 12, 2007 at 8:49 PM
COMMENT:
As our renovation is nearly completed, it could be said that 105 Main has many of its original ‘bones’ intact, attesting to its unique architectural heritage on Nantucket. But, it is not the same house of c.1680. How can it be? Rex Ingram, Architect
WOW!
Posted by John | Nov. 29, 2007 at 9:43 AM
COMMENT:
Are people so unhappy with their lives today that the must constantly romanticize the past. It seems to me that the Hysterical Societies of the United States would rather see a vacant lot with a plaque announcing the building of the past than see someone renovate and save it.

Post a comment

(* = required field.)
  • Please check to make sure that your referer is not blocked.


Subject line of your comment*
Your comments (200 words max)*
Email*
First name*
Last Name*
Enter the code shown below.
Visual CAPTCHA
This helps prevent automated form submissions.
 
Boston Buzzworthy

Travel Club Newsletter

Sign-up for our Travel Club email to receive special New England getaway packages.